Sex abuse victim wins compensation order

A 44-year-old man today won a High Court victory in his battle for compensation over his claim that he suffered ''devastating'' night-and-day physical and sexual abuse during his years in a children's home.

A 44-year-old man today won a High Court victory in his battle for compensation over his claim that he suffered ''devastating'' night-and-day physical and sexual abuse during his years in a children's home.

The man, referred to as ''O'' for legal reasons, had his allegations of abuse between the ages of 12 and 17 years at Bryn Alyn children's homes in Clwyd rejected by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Appeal Panel because he had complained too late, and the panel was not satisfied he was telling the truth.

But today a High Court judge in London allowed a challenge by O to the decision, made in February this year, and ordered the panel to reconsider its ruling.

He refused the panel permission to appeal, although it can still ask the Court of Appeal itself to consider the case.

Mr Justice Wilson said consultant psychiatrist Dr Trevor Friedman had told the panel he believed O's account of being sexually abused by Bryn Alyn's founder and owner, John Allen.

But the panel had ''improperly'' rejected O's claim for compensation as a victim of crime without referring to the expert's evidence in its decision.

''I consider it would have been wise for the panel to refer in its decision to Dr Friedman's report,'' said the judge.

The panel had also failed properly to address O's claim with regard to the physical abuse he said he had suffered.

Earlier this year, 13 former residents at five children's homes run by the Bryn Alyn company, a private company which went into voluntary liquidation in 1997, received High Court damages totalling more than #300,000 for the abuse suffered at the hands of staff over three decades beginning in the 1970s.

The homes had been investigated in a Government-backed inquiry by Sir Ronald Waterhouse which revealed that abuse was rife at homes in north Wales.

Allen was jailed in February 1995 for six years for indecently assaulting six boys in his care.

The judge said the North Wales Child Abuse Tribunal inquiry, which considered among other things allegations of sexual abuse committed by Allen on various children at the Bryn Alyn homes was ''only the dark backdrop'' to O's claim.

The Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority had already accepted evidence from clinical psychologist Lesley Cohen that O had suffered physical abuse whilst at the Ternhall Road children's home in 1969 and awarded him #2,000.

But both the CICA and appeal panel had rejected O's accusations of indecent assault and rape by Allen during his time at Bryn Alyn, saying his allegations were not made until after the conclusion of the North Wales inquiry.

The panel decided O, who went to a Bryn Alyn home in December 1969, had taken too long to make the allegations and there was lack of evidence that he was the victim of sexual abuse.

Mr Justice Wilson said the question for the panel was whether O, who had not featured in the inquiry, was another victim or just using the findings of the inquiry to give credence to a false claim.

O had given only brief evidence to the panel. But consultant psychiatrist Dr Friedman had ''prepared a long report which was the product of a much more intensive one-to-one appraisal of the claimant''.

Dr Friedman said O, like many other adults sexually abused as children, did not disclose his abuse until recent times because, having been abused by a figure of authority, he grew up distrustful of authority and did not believe he would be taken seriously.

It was evident from the ''increasing intensity'' of O's post traumatic stress symptoms that there were psychological reasons why he did not wish to allow memories of being physically abused during the day and sexually abused in his bed at night to distress him again.

O had told Dr Friedman how he ''played dead'' on many occasions when Allen went to rape him in his bedroom ''to try to make out it was not happening''.

''The panel came to a conclusion as to the truthfulness of the allegations of sexual abuse based upon the lateness of their articulation.''

But it went without saying that the panel would, in general terms, have been well aware of the complex psychological reasons why a child victim of sexual abuse might be inhibited for a long time in articulating a complaint.

If a panel was minded to reject the truth of a claimant's account it should state the specific professional evidence which addressed the point.

The judge ruled: ''Making every allowance for the right of the panel to express its decision succinctly, I hold it was improper and insufficient to reject the claimant's claim of sexual abuse without at least referring to the specific professional evidence which purported to rebut the point upon which the rejection was cast.

''Accordingly I uphold the claim, quash the decision of February 26 2001 and remit the case for fresh determination.''